President Nominates Social Activist over Judical Experience …

The title change is for Kenny.  Yes, I read her speech and it is a matter of record that 60% of her decisions have been overturned … I think Grumpy Gus is right, Sonia should have run for the (California) legislature.  Judge Sonia views the world through “race” not the law as the following quote illustrates.  Thanks Kenny.

I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman…”

[a] “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

This IS a judical activist woman who does not understand the role of a Supreme Court Justice (and I don’t care if she went to Yale or not, so did GWB and look what he did).

But what will this man do?

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) today:

“I would expect that Senate Democrats will afford the minority the same courtesy as we move forward with this process,”

He is speaking of course of the 2006 Alito confirmation hearings during which he was in Arizona once again reminding voters who he is and why he still needs a job.  But during the actual hearings in 2006, Jon Kyl had this to say:

“One might wonder why we would need more than just a couple of days of debate, especially since nothing new has been said for weeks. But, if the public has noticed anything during this process it is that senators value their right of unlimited debate.”

Meanwhile the Democrats have August 7 as their “due date” to complete the court confirmation process, and when asked about this deadline, Jon Kyl said, “…it was “probably too ambitious a timeframe.”

Anyone paying a bit of attention will note just how cautious the Republicans are being in their public comments regarding a Hispanic woman nominee.  And that’s just the point, race and gender.

The decisions of this radical activist judge are being muted by fear of being labeled “racist” or worse.  Is that what its come down to in America today?  It was ok to drag Clarance Thomas through the mud of sexism and racism, but hands off to the pick of a minority by a minority president.

Of course the Democrats aren’t a bit shy about their intentions.  They need Ms. No-to-mayor on the bench because of pending radical climate change legislation and radical health care socialization bills working their way through Congress presently.

Look carefully at how many times this candidate for the SCOTUS has been rebuked by her own Second Court of Appeals.

The bottom line is, this president is playing the race card and no one is calling him on it.  The consequences of this judicial nomination will be with our children and our great grandchildren for generations to come.  Can we really afford to continue this affirmative reverse race game?

How about nominating a real judge (of any color, gender, or sexual orientation) who can make the case for Obama’s progressive programs based squarely and logically on law as written, and not on the richness of their ethnic and gender experiences.

Unfortunately, as Lawrence Butler (Rowan University political scientist) Tuesday put it, the aggressiveness with which the GOP chooses to go after Sotomayor “is more of a political decision, not one based on principle.”

We see the truth in Mr. Butler’s comment in the statements of Jon Kyl.


  1. GOP Boomer Gal says

    Anyone remember Miguel Estrada? I hope the way he was treated is thrown in the face of the ‘RATs

  2. Veritas Vincit says

    2003 Hispanic male that the Democrats shot full of holes until Miguel washed his hands and walked away.

    Right On Boomer Gal!

  3. George of the Desert says

    Elections have consequences. This is one of them. The GOP does not have the power to stop this nomination and the idea of filibustering judicial nominees is fraught with peril.

    We would be among the first to complain if a GOP president nominated a justice and the Ds filibustered. And we would be right. The fact of the matter is we know when presidents get elected that they may have the chance to nominate a justice. That’s why we must elect conservative presidents.

    Taking Sontamyor’s nomination into the poisoned well of partisan bickering will not attract one voter to the GOP. And if you haven’t noticed, the GOP could use more voters.

    She should be strongly questioned. Her views should be vetted as best as possible. She should feel the heat. But the COLD, HARD TRUTH is that the GOP lost this argument in November of 2008, and we can’t shout our way back to victory by attacking a judicial nominee – no matter how much she may deserve it.

    We must be the party of better ideas and we are not doing that right now. IDEAS are what motivate people.

  4. Carl Hay says

    Glad to see that someone else has noticed that Kyl’s really changed since 2006.

    I used to think he was the best member of the Senate, then he:

    1.) supported comprehensive amnesty for illegal aliens,

    2.) voted to raid the federal treasury to bail out the Wall Street Wastrels (TARP), and

    3.) tried to install a country clubber as the state party chair.

  5. In 1992, Republican President George H. W. Bush appointed Sotomayor to the District Court for the Southern District of New York.

    Later, in 1998, President Bill Clinton nominated her to the 2nd Circuit, and she was confirmed with bipartisan support in a 67-29 vote.

    Indeed, five current Republican Senators voted in favor of her nomination then: Sens. Collins, Gregg, Hatch, Lugar, Snowe. Among the no votes were current Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, current Minority Whip John Kyl and Sen. Jeff Sessions, currently the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

    I guess the lesson is this: even if your party is holding the White House watch who is being appointed to judgeships.

  6. I am so PO’d I could just cuss! It is as if, and this sounds horrible…but if you are white and especially male..forget it! DO NOT expect to have fairness if you are anything but a liberal member of an ethnic minority! What is fairness? Does fairness mean overlooking blatantly racist remarks that are intentionally derogatory to a certain class of citizen, if the maker of the remarks is viewed as an underrepresented minority? On top of that, her judicial record is abysmal!

    So, we have an openly racist, activist judge who believes, and is so brazen as to admit it, that “policy” is determined in the courts and whose record of being overturned makes even the 9th circuit blush!

    I do not recognize my own country.

  7. Veritas Vincit says

    This is for George of the Desert … this nominee needs to go down in flames and be subjected to what conservative minorities have endured at the hands of the Democrats.

    That said, what you can expect is to see this nomination drag on into the Fall in time for the opening of election 2010 season. At that point, enough Democrats are up for election that they’ll take a pass on this radical activist.

  8. Frank Soto says

    If anyone is actually interested in reading intelligent conservative/libertarian legal commentary on Judge Sotomayor’s nomination (as opposed to this all too common, generic knee-jerk reaction), I would recommend reading the commentary on

    My own perspective on this tends to be the following:

    First, everyone knew that a liberal president would appoint a liberal judge, so throwing around words like “activist” hardly mean a thing (speaking of activist – no mention that one of the lead lawyers pressing claims opposed to Prop 8 is former Solicitor General Olson under Bush I?).

    Second, I think that conservatives should be relieved that Obama chose to go the political route and pick Judge Sotomayor over Judge Wood or SG Kagan. Either of the latter two women, I think, would have been a much stronger force for the “liberal agenda” on the Court. I think Sotomayor will perfectly replace Justice Souter: i.e., she will be a consistently liberal vote, but won’t be a leader.

    Third, Ann’s comments are a bit offense to this white male who has similar credentials, but not as impressive, as this nominee. There are not a lot of people who graduate second in their class from Princeton, are on the Yale Law Journal, are respected as one of the best lawyers in a USAO, and a well-respected (if not particularly well-known) jurist. If you think that her “only” credentials are that she is hispanic and female, well, that is just foolish. She is certainly more qualified that Justice Thomas was, even if my Constitutional interpretation would line up with CT more, I am able to recognize that.

    Last, I would assume that each individual critiquing this potential Justice was opposed to the Harriett Miers nomination, correct?

    In the end, I will probably disagree with almost every decision that Sotomayor writes, aside from the 9-0 cases which are clear. But I don’t see her nomination having a net effect on the Court; further, I don’t think that President Obama is likely to score as many political points with this as he things, I do, however, think that Republicans can lose a ton of favor with Hispanics depending upon how they play their cards.

  9. George of the Desert says


    I respect your passion for how poor the quality of this nominee is. I agree with you.

    But you are sorely mistaken if you think this will drag out and cause Dems to lose seats in 2010.

    You must deal in reality. Reality is Obama got elected by a significant margin and the Ds hold massive majorities in congress. Yeah, that sucks, but for now it’s reality.

    To the winners go the spoils. If the GOP acts petulant and stomps its feet because we aren’t getting our way, that might please the hard-core base, but that’s all it will do.

    I was in college and proudly cast my very first votes for Goldwater for senate in 1980 and Reagan for president. The great thing about these men is that they had IDEAS and presented them with truth and a certain optimism. Getting angry about a liberal president appointing a justice who fits his philosophy is a waste of time when the votes are there to confirm.

    Republicans need to look at the Reagan / Kemp model of having IDEAS and presenting them in ways that ATTRACT, not repel, voters. Otherwise, we will become as doctrinaire as Libertarians and win as many elections.

  10. Based on the comments to this post (and the post itself), imagine me as the Rich Texan from “The Simpsons”, shooting my pistols in the air.

    Or maybe a grizzled prospector dancing over a newly struck vein shouting “Gold!” over and over.

  11. Grumpy Gus says

    The nominee has been on the bench a long time. Damage done. The GOP in the Senate can do almost nothing to stop her elevation to SCOTUS. Damage done. Randy Pullen and his band of idiots bash Kyl. Damage done.

  12. Kenny Jacobs says

    The quote at the top of the original post is part of a speech. Included in that speech are these words:

    “Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”

    Since VV can’t be bothered to include the context of the quote since it doesn’t serve his prejudices here is link to the text of the speech:

    Since the title of the post is about ‘social engineering’ it’s fair to point out VV’s engineering. Was it too much to ask that you read the speech, VV?

  13. I’m tired of the whole “reverse discrimination” thing.

    It’s not REVERSE discrimination, it’s just DISCRIMINATION!

    She’s a racist. Her statements have been racist. Her actions have been racist. Lady Justice is suppose to be blind!

    The GOP should question her legitimately and relentlessly. She should be made to answer for her statements and her ridiculous decisions. She needs to be called to the mat and made to fight for this. Then the public will know what kind of person they put in the White House and what kind of person they are getting on the bench.

  14. Frank…please accept my apology if you were offended. This is a sensitive subject and because it is so visceral, the send/receive disconnect can lead to misunderstanding of intent.

    But…her words are terribly offensive to me. She did not say her academic and judicial experience, coupled with her own life experiences, has given her a perspective that would lend itself to wise decisions. She relied strictly on her race and gender versus the race and gender of the comparative subject.

    I understand this was in response to a previous comment by Justices Ginsberg adn O’Connor. She could have taken the topic off of race and gender, moving it to the fullness of all that qualifies one to make wise judgement, the things you fairly pointed out. But she chose to ignore those accomplishments and moved it into a tighter corner….race and gender with hers being superior.

  15. James Davidson says

    Conservatives: Save it for when it matters. A liberal president picks a liberal judge to replace a liberal justice. What did you expect? We lost the election. Our candidate had mush in his mouth and was less articulate than Bush. His own side liked his running mate better than him.

    The thing to do is follow the process, hold the hearings, and focus on her record. We do not want our Senators to mimic the disgusting behavior of their liberal colleagues who went so far as to make Mrs. Alito cry.

    This judge is clearly qualified by education and experience. We don’t know whether she is qualified by temperament and that is fair game to explore — respectfully.

    At the end of the process if the hearings reveal that her only shortcoming is that she is occasionally sharp-tongued to lawyers, then gee whiz, welcome to federal court. It’s like being surprised that a baseball manager might cuss a time or two at an umpire’s call.

  16. Kenny Jacobs says

    Hey VV, have you read the speech yet? It’s time to change the headline on your post or admit you were wrong. As to the folks posting comments alleging Judge Sotomayor is a racist, please get an adult to read the speech to you.

  17. Grumpy Gus says

    I read most of her speech. She should have run for the legislature, what with her unique “voice” and all running through the speech. She can’t define “wise” and is nothing more than a nice lady with an ambiguous definition of too many qualities that are important to SCOTUS.

    Well, if she’s not a racist, she’s certainly got a kind of displaced nationalist streak in her regarding her Puerto Rican heritage. In her speech, which leads up to the remark in question, she characterizes her upbringing as superior, simply because it’s different. That’s garbage.

  18. Kenny Jacobs says

    You got me VV. I shouldn’t have left it at “have you read the speech?” Obviously, it’s your comprehension that is in question.

    BTW, only 1.3% of her decisions have been overturned by SCOTUS. Dear VV, reading is fundamental!

    Why do you go out of your way to embarrass yourself?

  19. Kenny Jacobs says

    VV, got an answer for why you stated 60% of Judge Sotomayor’s decisions were overturned? Does Rush ‘got your tongue?’

  20. Veritas Vincit says

    Kenny you quote Newsweek?

    As for the win, “…by a significant margin” please define significant? The margin was less than 8 million votes or, 6.45%

    Six percent isn’t a *significant* number. In the United States, 6.45% is about the same as the population of Israel or Honduras – that’s the scale of margin put in perspective.

    The woman puts race and gender ahead of the law. There is no place in the law for “life experience”. Remember, Justice is supposed to be blind? Well in Judge Sotomayor’s vision justice is viewed through the lens of race and gender conflict.

  21. Kenny Jacobs says

    VV, thank you for conceding you were wrong. I quoted Newsweek to show you were factually wrong.

    However, I don’t understand why you are asking me a question regarding the phrase “significant win,” since I didn’t write a comment using that phrase on this point. Nor do I understand your reference to “6.45%” since it is not referenced by Newsweek either.

    Your statement, “The woman puts race and gender ahead of the law,” is your opinion, nothing more.

    So, VV, your “facts” are wrong and your opinions are silly.

  22. employment says

    The holy passion of friendship is so sweet and steady and loyal and enduring in nature that it will last through a whole lifetime, if not asked to lend money.

Leave a Reply